The Court of Appeal upheld the pre-trial detention of a Turkish Cypriot man facing rape, indecent assault and sexual harassment charges, rejecting his appeal against a district court ruling ordering that he remain in custody until the start of his trial before the Famagusta criminal court, the law office announced on Tuesday.

In a judgment dated July 23, the appeal court found that the Famagusta district court had properly exercised its discretion when ordering the defendant’s detention, dismissing defence arguments that there was insufficient evidence to suggest a likelihood of conviction and that his personal circumstances ruled out any risk of absconding.

The defendant faces four charges relating to the same complainant, all alleged to have taken place at the same time and location.

Following his committal for trial, the prosecution successfully applied for his continued detention pending the hearing, citing a risk that he would fail to appear before the court.

The appeal court reiterated that remanding a defendant in custody before trial is an exceptional measure and falls within the discretion of the trial court.

It said appellate intervention is justified only where that discretion has not been exercised properly or where established legal principles have been ignored.

Addressing the defence’s claim that there was no realistic prospect of conviction, the court said the argument relied on a selective reading of the evidence.

“We do not agree with the appellant’s counsel that the evidence does not indicate a likelihood of conviction,” the judgment said, adding that the defence had relied on “a fragmented and selective reading” of the complainant’s statement rather than an assessment of the evidence as a whole.

The court stressed that, at the stage of considering pre-trial detention, it does not assess the credibility of witnesses or determine guilt or innocence. Instead, it examines whether the evidence is sufficiently strong to establish a reasonable prospect of conviction.

The appeal court also rejected the defence’s argument that the defendant’s ties to the Republic, including his Cypriot citizenship, eliminated any risk of absconding.

While acknowledging those ties, it agreed with the lower court that they were not sufficient to outweigh concerns that he might fail to appear for trial.

The judgment also addressed the defendant’s links to the north, clarifying that the detention order was “not based on the fact that the appellant is a Turkish Cypriot”, but rather on his “strong ties to the occupied areas not under the effective control of the Republic”, which were considered relevant to the risk of absconding.

Referring to previous case law, the court reiterated that Cypriot citizenship does not in itself entitle a defendant to more favourable treatment.